Disposed¶31

Parmeshwar Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Apr 2025WPC/634/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Social audit based recovery from Sarpanch/office bearers of Gram Panchayats; notice and show cause notice under Section 89 and Section 92 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 by SDO (Revenue), Mainpur on CEO Janpad Panchayat's list; grievance of no opportunity of hearing at list-preparation stage; writ against preliminary notice held premature, petition disposed with directions to file reply and for SDO to pass detailed speaking order before recovery; principles of natural justice; Gariyabandh; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: petitioner permitted to file reply to the notice under Section 89 explaining the alleged irregularities; SDO (Revenue) directed to consider it in accordance with Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam and pass a detailed and speaking order before any recovery. ¶31

Parmeshwar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery of the alleged amount could be sought from the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing at the time of preparation of the recovery list and issuance of notice. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice under Section 89 explaining the irregularities alleged against him.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The notice (Annexure P/1) and the show cause notice under challenge are only notices issued under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam.

¶29

Key takeaways

The petitioner will get an opportunity of hearing to explain about the irregularities alleged and the recovery sought from him.ratio¶29
Proceeding under Section 89 stands drawn against the petitioner and the final decision is to be passed by the SDO (Revenue) only after receipt of the reply to the show cause notice (as recorded from the statement of learned State counsel).ratio¶30
The SDO (Revenue) is directed to consider the reply in accordance with Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam and to pass a detailed and speaking order before effecting recovery of the amount alleged against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPC No. 634 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Amitendra Kishore Prasad J., order dated 24.04.2025) challenging a notice dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the SDO (Revenue), Mainpur under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, founded on a communication/list dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P/3) sent by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat for recovery from Sarpanches/office bearers including the petitioner pursuant to a social audit: HELD, the documents under challenge are only notices under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam and the petitioner will get an opportunity of hearing; proceeding under Section 89 having been drawn and show cause notice issued, the petitioner was permitted to file a reply and the SDO (Revenue) was directed to decide in accordance with Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam by a detailed and speaking order before any recovery; writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:18646

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 634 of 2023

¶7

1 - Parmeshwar Netam S/o Devi Singh Netam Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Taurenga, Tahsil Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 / 5

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioners :	Mr. Amitesh Kumar	Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents/State :	Mr. Praveen Das, D	y. A.G.
For Respondent No. 5 :	Mr. Nikhil Kumar	Singh, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr.	Ghanshyam Patel,
	Advocate.

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

24.04.2025

¶21

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the notice dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4/ Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mainpur, District Gariyaband as well as the communication/list dated 03/03/2022 (Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No.5/ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband to the SDO (Revenue) intimating him that as per social audit conducted by the audit team, the recovery has to be made from various Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats including the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was working as Office bearers/Panchs of the Panchayats has committed irregularities during his tenure in the said Panchayats.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the list issued by the CEO, notice was issued to the

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

petitioner by SDO for recovery of the alleged amount from them. At the time of preparation of the list of recovery of the amount, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that as per the list/communication (Annexure P/3) given to the SDO (Revenue) by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur an intimation has been given for recovery of amount from various Office bearers of the Gram Panchayats on the basis of the social audit conducted by the audit team where several irregularities were found when the Office beareres/Panchayats were working in the the Gram Panchayats. He further submits that after receipt of the communication by the CEO, the SDO (Revenue) has drawn a proceeding under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Adhiniyam”) and notices have been issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam to the petitioners as well as the other Panchs or Office bearers of the Gram Panchayats. He would argue that that there is a provision under Section 89 that before passing any order of recovery, proper opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the office bearers of the Gram Panchayats, accordingly the show cause notice has been issued under the said provision to provide opportunity of hearing to the Office bearers and to observe the principles of natural justice before passing any order in the list communicated by the CEO.

¶26

4 / 5

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶28

Perusal of the pleadings would show that the CEO has sent a communication to the SDO for recovery of amount from various office bearers/Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, as per the social audit conducted by the audit team. The SDO, in pursuance to the said communication/list provided by the CEO, has drawn proceeding under Section 89 and issued notice to the petitioner to explain how the amount as stated by the audit team as well as the CEO would not be recovered from him.

¶29

It appears from the notice (Annexure P/1) and the show cause notice which are under Challenge by the petitioner is only a notice as per the provision under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam and the petitioner will get opportunity of hearing to explain about the irregularities and recovery sought from him.

¶30

As per the statement of the learned State counsel that the proceeding under Section 89 has been drawn against the petitioner and only after receiving of the reply to the said show cause notice, the final decision has to be passed by the SDO (Revenue).

¶31

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner may file reply to the notice under Section 89 and explain the irregularities alleged against him and the SDO is directed to consider the same in accordance with the provision

¶32

5 / 5

¶33

under Section 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam and pass a detailed and speaking order before the recovery of the amount alleged against the petitioner.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶36

Raghu Jat

Parmeshwar Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bisahu Ram Chandra Kashi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Samuel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pratap Singh Korram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Usha Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Rathia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Injore Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh